17 comments:

If the correct law only allows special treatment for someone who is pregnant, would this not fail the Equal Protection clause? Worse yet, it could create an absurd situation where a pregnant teenage girl may have permission to get married to a guy who could not possibly give or get consent because he is 1) under age and 2) not pregnant (nor could he be). I presume, when Ann says, "What a complete screw up!", she means more than just the "extraneous 'not'".

Ok, Arkansas Legislature, here's some help from the Texas Family Code:

§ 2.102. PARENTAL CONSENT FOR UNDERAGE APPLICANT. (a) If an applicant is 16 years of age or older but under 18 years of age, the county clerk shall issue the license if parental consent is given as provided by this section.

"MAY have to call a special session" (?!) They should have done that yesterday! Now THAT was a shameful mistake. Any laws concerning minors - especially with regard to pregnancy and marriage -- should be triple-checked, and by several people. How did that bill ever pass through many pens?

I'm not sure about the constitutionality angle, but Shadowfox is right on about the potentially bizarre results if the legislature merely changes the law by removing the word "not." If that's the only change made, then the statute will read: "In order for a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is pregnant to obtain a marriage license, the person must provide the county clerk with evidence of parental consent to the marriage."

Suppose a 17 year old boy knocks up a 17 year old girl, and they want to get married, with all parents fully consenting. How is that legal? She can obtain a marriage license, because she is under 18 and pregnant. He cannot, because he is under 18 and not pregnant. Oops.

Keep in mind that there are a number of communities that regularly do 'give away' child brides-- including some south Asians, Gypsies in South Carolina and polygamists from Colorado City/Hildale.

Having more familiarity than I'd like with the last of these situations, I commend Arkansas for at least trying to make it harder to do this. They may have to fix the error, but they have figured out that when a 16 (or 14, or 9, or 5) year old is forced to marry a man 30 years her senior, it isn't a 'choice.'

Some years ago, a judge discovered, (or affected to discover) that due to careless drafting, a legislative act included a repealer clause repealing "all laws, and parts of laws" that instead of just repealing the previous version of Act, could be interpreted as repealing "all laws, and parts of laws," that is, every law ever passed in the State.